Contractual employees do not have an inherent right to contract renewal; their rights depend on explicit terms. Outsourcing policies are typically non-reviewable by courts.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties, Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Madhukar Ojha, learned counsel for the Chief Executive Officer, State Health Agency, Ayushman Bharat, Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojna, Hazratganj, Lucknow and Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Shikhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Beneficiary Facilitation Agency.

2. Since grievance of all the petitioners in the bunch of connected writ petitions is similar and question of facts and law is also similar, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the aforesaid writ petitions have been connected and are being decided by a common order.

3. Notably, first interim order has been granted by this Court on 03.10.2023 in Writ-A No.7401 of 2023, Aman Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others . Thereafter, interim order has been granted on 04.10.2023 in leading Writ-A No. 6678 of 2023, Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others , which has been followed in some of the writ petitions connect with this bunch of writ petitions. The order dated 03.10.2023 passed in re; Aman Kumar (supra) reads as under:-

“1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 22.08.2023 whereby petitioners who have been employed as contractual workers on the post of Arogya Mitra have been required to be employed through an outsourcing agency.

3. It has been submitted that petitioners were initially appointed on contract basis for one year but their services were renewed in pursuance of terms of contract which is still subsisting since petitioners are being paid their honourarium till date in terms of the contractual employment although they have not been provided the latest order renewing their contract services.

4. Learned State Counsel however on the basis of written instructions dated 30.09.2023 submitted by Chief Medical Officer, Raebareli submits that petitioners have been employed on contract basis on the post of Arogya Mitra. Impugned order/letter dated 22.08.2023 in fact pertains to engaging persons through outsourcing on the post of Ayushman Mitra, which is completely a different programme and therefore petitioners would not be affected by the impugned order.

5. In regard to aforesaid, learned State Counsel is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

6. In view of submissions advanced by learned State Counsel on the basis of instructions, it is directed that until further orders of this Court, petitioners shall not be replaced by outsourcing nor shall they be compelled to provide their services through outsourcing in pursuance of impugned order/letter dated 22.08.2023 till they continue on contract basis.

7. List on 07.11.2023.”

4. The order dated 04.10.2023 passed in re; Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya (supra) reads as under:-

“1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 4 to 11 as well as opposite party no. 3.

2. On 15.09.2023, the following orders were passed:-

"1. Hear